NEMD vs. IBTF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NEMD (Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF) and IBTF (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NEMD is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund actively managed by Neuberger Berman, while IBTF is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2025 Maturity US Treasury Index. NEMD is actively managed, while IBTF is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. NEMD charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTF.

Performance

NEMD vs. IBTF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

NEMD

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 1.16%
• YTD: 3.64%
• 6M: 3.74%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBTF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 1.88%
• 3Y*: 3.74%
• 5Y*: 0.97%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NEMD vs. IBTF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	3.64%	7.10%
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	0.00%	1.31%

Correlation

The correlation between NEMD and IBTF is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 11, 2025	-0.06

Return for Risk

NEMD vs. IBTF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

NEMD

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

IBTF

IBTF Risk / Return Rank: 99
IBTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Omega Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Martin Ratio Rank: 99

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

NEMD vs. IBTF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF (NEMD) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	NEMD	IBTF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	6.63	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	19.00	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	6.14	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	52.11	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	263.51	—

Drawdowns

NEMD vs. IBTF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NEMD drawdown since its inception was -4.43%, smaller than the maximum IBTF drawdown of -10.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEMD and IBTF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NEMD	IBTF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.43%	-10.45%	+6.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.04%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.46%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.18%	0.00%	-1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.56%	-3.30%	+2.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.01%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	NEMD	IBTF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	0.00%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	0.15%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.63%	0.34%	+6.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.63%	2.37%	+4.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.63%	2.55%	+4.08%

NEMD vs. IBTF - Expense Ratio Comparison

NEMD has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTF's 0.07% expense ratio.

Dividends

NEMD vs. IBTF - Dividend Comparison

NEMD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.73%, more than IBTF's 2.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	2.08%	3.83%	4.32%	4.03%	1.93%	0.57%	0.59%
NEMD Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Hard Currency ETF	4.73%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NEMD and IBTF in my portfolio?

NEMD and IBTF have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, NEMD or IBTF?

On fees, IBTF is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, NEMD or IBTF?

IBTF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for NEMD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NEMD or IBTF?

NEMD has the higher dividend yield at 4.73%, compared with 2.08% for IBTF.

What is the main difference between NEMD and IBTF?

NEMD is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while IBTF is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for NEMD and 0.07% for IBTF.